I read Sam's comments on friendbook and similar relief on other friends news aggregates. Regarding the filibuster, that is. And yay for that nonsense bill succeeding. But naively enough can't help but feel that whatever the subject, one person or party blocking the floor for half a day so a vote can not take place isn't the finest example of democracy in action I ever saw.

We're allowed to love filibuster when they circumvent a vote but give us a lovely result?

I would say we're allowed to love a filibuster when it preserves the rights of actual minorities in the citizenry, but it's not something that should be abused for the sake of the minority political party's party politicking and gumming up the works of legitimate legislation, like so.

That graph means nothing to me, because I'm tired, and the red/blue colour scheme gives it political tones that would mean nothing to a Youessien perhaps, but mainly because it does nothing to describe why yakking so long you prevent other elected representatives voting on an issue is allowed.

i wonder more about zoophiles, and how much the inability of animals to give consent might be an issue. after all, we do lots of things to animals that they don't consent to - holding them as pets, performing sterilization operations, doing euthanasia. much of that can be (or at least is) justified on a similar basis to doing medical procedures on children without their consent - the child/animal can't understand enough to give consent, and the procedure is done for their benefit - depends on where you want to go down that road, i suppose. how much of the opposition that people have to a man having sex with a horse (for example) is outrage about to the fact that the horse did not give consent, and how much is feelings of disgust at the concept of bestiality?

Oh the non-diddling of animals isn't a consent thing, really. Marrying them is an issue of consent since they can't give it, but putting the d into the animal v or a isn't about consent. It's part of the cruelty to animals shit. You can't organize dog fighting either, and that is not because the dogs can't consent to the fight. It's because it's unnecessarily cruel to the animals.

Animals don't have rights basically. Laws are based on the usefulness vs harm. And then it's mostly about the usefulness because again animals don't have rights. You simply don't get to fuck them because it has no use._________________

Here in Washington bestiality was legal, until a guy died having sex with a horse. People were outraged, though they didn't seem to be outraged on the horse's behalf, so much as they saw someone doing something stupid and dying for it. In that case, I think it's more like when people want drugs or other things banished so that people won't be harmed by them - even if they want to be.

I think a lot of people just object to it on the grounds it is sinful or just wrong or something like that. They don't necessarily need to be physically harming anything. Also, most people seem to think of men having sex with female animals, and don't think about the other way around

Mr. Gary, you can't be expected to know what a rape kit is; our elected officials don't even know.
I once upon a time did know the origin of the filibuster, but alas, I don't know anymore. I recall it was something outside the rule book that was invented during one session of congress, and then was kept forever more. I was really hopefully Harry Reid would keep his promise to get rid of it - then he didn't and I was super pissed.

I'd like to see them changed, if not gotten rid of, so that there are only a limited number of filibusters to be had in any given period (maybe two or three per year.) That way people would use them for things they really think are important, not just to stall every day business._________________::lesser crisis mode::

that was my sense, stripey - that people objected to bestiality not because of any particular feeling for the animal but rather revulsion for the sin. so if you remove the sin objection, is there still a reason zoophiles would not be entitled to becoming a protected class?

and also, yes, we need to go back to filibusters the way the lady in texas did them, where you just have to stand there talking and talking and talking, just to demonstrate how strongly you really feel about the matter. one wonders, if it came right down to it, how many republican senators really hate obama enough to stand there talking all day. right now, it's so easy to obstruct action - you just threaten to maybe do something (which in turn just involves saying your are doing it) that it takes no effort to toss wrenches into everything. if you had to physically haul that wretch into the machine room and use some actual muscle to get it into the machine, people might decide it's not _that_ awful if they let it just keep running.

although i do think the texas insistence that the filibusterer has to keep on the subject of the bill at hand is a bit extreme - we miss the excitement of senators telling stories and reading recipes (and possibly the phone book)._________________aka: neverscared!
a flux of vibrant matter

So having to talk about anything is fine if you object to a law, but actually having to stick to the subject of why you oppose the law is extreme? Why?

And Rand Paul did do the 'stand up and talk' form of filibuster regarding drone strikes against Americans, but I imagine you wouldn't really see much of it from either team blue or team red nowadays.

In part because the whole "You have to stick to the subject of the law!" rule is, uh...
...

... Well, when Wendy Davis talked about sonograms, while filibustering an abortion bill, they claimed she was not sticking to the subject of the bill (the bill was about ABORTION, not SONOGRAMS, GOSH. Despite the fact that she was referring to a previous bill about abortions. That required sonograms), claimed it was her third strike, and shut down her filibuster. The only reason the plan was foiled was because the gallery went nucking futs at that bullshit._________________"No, but evil is still being --Is having reason-- Being reasonable! Mousie understands? Is always being reason. Is punishing world for not being... Like in head. Is always reason. World should be different, is reason."
-Ed, from Digger

Joined: 04 Sep 2006Posts: 2545Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 2:31 pm Post subject:

Felgraf wrote:

Mindslicer wrote:

So having to talk about anything is fine if you object to a law, but actually having to stick to the subject of why you oppose the law is extreme? Why?

And Rand Paul did do the 'stand up and talk' form of filibuster regarding drone strikes against Americans, but I imagine you wouldn't really see much of it from either team blue or team red nowadays.

In part because the whole "You have to stick to the subject of the law!" rule is, uh...
...

... Well, when Wendy Davis talked about sonograms, while filibustering an abortion bill, they claimed she was not sticking to the subject of the bill (the bill was about ABORTION, not SONOGRAMS, GOSH. Despite the fact that she was referring to a previous bill about abortions. That required sonograms), claimed it was her third strike, and shut down her filibuster. The only reason the plan was foiled was because the gallery went nucking futs at that bullshit.

Doesn't that suggest that she arguably diverted from the subject of the proposed law itself twice before?

the other "diversions" were also things relevant to but not directly contained in the bill at hand.

basically, they didn't want her to mention any of the other things that might impact the ability of women in texas to get an abortion, even other laws would definitely also have an impact on how women were affected by the law under discussion.

sorta like if rand paul were filibustering the bill on drone strikes against americans, but was forbidden from mentioning any other bills that might cover who was subject to or protected from drone strikes, any bills that did things like define who is considered to be a terrorist, and probably habeus corpus.

(actually, i think one strike was that another legislator helped her put on a back brace. apparently only physically fit people are allowed to filibuster in texas.)_________________aka: neverscared!
a flux of vibrant matter

Joined: 04 Sep 2006Posts: 2545Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 4:03 pm Post subject:

mouse wrote:

the other "diversions" were also things relevant to but not directly contained in the bill at hand.

basically, they didn't want her to mention any of the other things that might impact the ability of women in texas to get an abortion, even other laws would definitely also have an impact on how women were affected by the law under discussion.

sorta like if rand paul were filibustering the bill on drone strikes against americans, but was forbidden from mentioning any other bills that might cover who was subject to or protected from drone strikes, any bills that did things like define who is considered to be a terrorist, and probably habeus corpus.

(actually, i think one strike was that another legislator helped her put on a back brace. apparently only physically fit people are allowed to filibuster in texas.)

That still doesn't explain why you think reading from the phone book, telling stories, reading recipes, etc. is an acceptable form of filibuster as opposed to actually talking about the bill at hand. You may be putting forth some sort of physical effort, but you're not making any case whatsoever as to why a bill should be opposed. Right now it sounds pretty partisan -- make those old fuddy-duddy Republicans stand up and talk, but not put so many restrictions on the process that it falts a filibuster by a Democrat.